flaming sphere vs. invisibility

[Dracorat]

If the "target point you choose" is a creature, then you are targeting the creature.

That's just it - the target point ISNT a creature, it's the ground underneath it.

Which is why the RAW definition of any spell you cast that targets a creature breaks invis works so well. It catches all of these. You might not like the idea of an explosive runes cast weeks ago being possible to break your invis, but too bad.

 

[pallandrome]

Ok, here is my take. Flaming Sphere is essentially an AoE attack, where you can concentrate to move the location. Since your will is directly acting to cause the harm, it pops the invisibility. Effects that began before you cast invisibility (think Delayed Blast Fireball) should not pop Invisibility since the damaging action was taking BEFORE the Invisibility went into effect. Summons get around this as a special case because you are directing another being to do the damage, but it's still the other being doing it. Similarly, if you charmed a monster before casting invisibility, having it maul someone shouldn't pop the invisibility either. It's not you doin the mauling, it's them, you just asked nicely.

 

[Dracorat]

Fireballs will pop your invis, at least per RAW. AoE doesn't protect you.

Summoned monsters get around it because the magical effect in question only does one thing: it summons and dismisses an ally for battle. Telling the very same ally to attack something forces it to take an action beyond that which the spell actually does.

The charmed monster example I agree with also. It would not pop invis if the invis was cast after the charming.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If that's your interpretation, then I would say the damage from call lightning is just as indirect as that from flaming sphere and therefore invisibility would remain intact. However, consider this:

If the "target point you choose" is a creature, then you are targeting the creature.

The target point is a location, not a thing. That location might also be the location of a creature, but the 'point' is not the creature; the point is a place.

But you don't feel that this is an example of the effect including a foe?

If the spell were 'Area: Cylinder (5-ft. diameter, 30 ft. high)', and it was centred on a foe's square, this would be a spell whose area includes a foe, right? The foe is within the bounds described by the spell's Area.

So if it's 'Effect: a 5-ft diameter, 30 ft. high bolt of lightning', and the foe is within the bounds described by the spell's Effect, isn't that a spell whose effect includes a foe? After all, there are no spells that have an entry along the lines of "Effect: One foe", so "whose effect includes a foe" can't mean "where a foe is what the spell creates"; it presumably, like Area, means "where a foe is within the volume that the effect occupies".

If I cast Fireball to evoke a burst of flame surrounding an orc, the orc is within the area of the spell. It's a spell whose area includes an orc.

If I cast Stinking Cloud to conjure a noxious fog bank surrounding an orc, the orc is within the effect of the spell. It's a spell whose effect includes an orc.

-Hyp.

 

[TYPO5478]

That's just it - the target point ISNT a creature, it's the ground underneath it.

As I said before, if that's the case, then the creature is simply in the way and the damage is indirect. Invisibility stays.

Which is why the RAW definition of any spell you cast that targets a creature breaks invis works so well. It catches all of these. You might not like the idea of an explosive runes cast weeks ago being possible to break your invis, but too bad.

None of the spells we've mentioned so far (flaming sphere, explosive runes, call lightning, wall of iron) actually target creatures. That's the whole point of this debate. If you're going to include spells that don't target creatures, why not just say that casting any spell breaks invisibility?

Flaming Sphere is essentially an AoE attack

No, it isn't. Flaming sphere does not have an area. It has a range of effect, which is not the same thing.

Since your will is directly acting to cause the harm, it pops the invisibility.

Your will is directly acting to move the sphere. The damage it may (or may not) cause is incidental. Just like cutting a bridge out from under someone.

Summoned monsters get around it because the magical effect in question only does one thing: it summons and dismisses an ally for battle.

I'd argue the same thing about flaming sphere.

So if it's 'Effect: a 5-ft diameter, 30 ft. high bolt of lightning', and the foe is within the bounds described by the spell's Effect, isn't that a spell whose effect includes a foe? After all, there are no spells that have an entry along the lines of "Effect: One foe", so "whose effect includes a foe" can't mean "where a foe is what the spell creates"; it presumably, like Area, means "where a foe is within the volume that the effect occupies".

If I cast Fireball to evoke a burst of flame surrounding an orc, the orc is within the area of the spell. It's a spell whose area includes an orc.

If I cast Stinking Cloud to conjure a noxious fog bank surrounding an orc, the orc is within the effect of the spell. It's a spell whose effect includes an orc.

This interpretation still allows for the ability of the foe to negate the caster's invisibility through their own actions... like walking into the stinking cloud, or jumping through a wall of fire, or stepping into the path of a flaming sphere. Should the caster's already fragile invisibility be subject to such actions that are completely out of his control?

 

[Hypersmurf]

None of the spells we've mentioned so far (flaming sphere, explosive runes, call lightning, wall of iron) actually target creatures. That's the whole point of this debate. If you're going to include spells that don't target creatures, why not just say that casting any spell breaks invisibility?

I'd like to include any spell whose area or effect includes a foe as well, since a/ spells that have Area or Effect entries don't Target anyone, and b/ the invisibility description specifically states that those spells count as attacks.

So no, I absolutely insist that we must include spells that don't target creatures... as long as they fit the definition of 'attack'.

This interpretation still allows for the ability of the foe to negate the caster's invisibility through their own actions... like walking into the stinking cloud, or jumping through a wall of fire, or stepping into the path of a flaming sphere. Should the caster's already fragile invisibility be subject to such actions that are completely out of his control?

Let's say I cast Fireball, with a point of origin over there somewhere, such that there is an orc within the radius of the blast. Does that end Invisibility?

Let's say I cast Delayed Blast Fireball, with a 2 round delay, with the point of origin over there somewhere, such that there is an orc within the radius of the blast. The orc doesn't move for two rounds, and is within the Fireball when it bursts. Does that end Invisibility?

Let's say I cast Delayed Blast Fireball, with a 2 round delay, with the point of origin over there somewhere, such that there is nobody within the radius of the blast. But during those two rounds, an orc moves into that area, and is within the Fireball when it bursts. Does that end Invisibility?

Let's say I cast Spike Stones - an Area spell - such that the area includes an orc. Does that end Invisibility?

Let's say I cast Spike Stones such that there is nobody in the area. An orc moves so that the area includes a foe, takes damage, and resists the spell with a saving throw. Does that end Invisibility?

-Hyp.

 

[TYPO5478]

Let's say I cast Fireball, with a point of origin over there somewhere, such that there is an orc within the radius of the blast. Does that end Invisibility?

Let's say I cast Delayed Blast Fireball, with a 2 round delay, with the point of origin over there somewhere, such that there is an orc within the radius of the blast. The orc doesn't move for two rounds, and is within the Fireball when it bursts. Does that end Invisibility?

Let's say I cast Delayed Blast Fireball, with a 2 round delay, with the point of origin over there somewhere, such that there is nobody within the radius of the blast. But during those two rounds, an orc moves into that area, and is within the Fireball when it bursts. Does that end Invisibility?

Let's say I cast Spike Stones - an Area spell - such that the area includes an orc. Does that end Invisibility?

Let's say I cast Spike Stones such that there is nobody in the area. An orc moves so that the area includes a foe, takes damage, and resists the spell with a saving throw. Does that end Invisibility?

A wizard 13/druid 7, huh? Just guessing.

Though I have to wonder, if you can cast delayed blast fireball, why aren't you using greater invisibility?

To answer your questions (in order): yes; yes, but only when the bead bursts; no; yes; no.

 

[Hypersmurf]

A wizard 13/druid 7, huh? Just guessing.

Arcane Hierophant, more likely

To answer your questions (in order): yes; yes, but only when the bead bursts; no; yes; no.

So you feel that the same orc (considered a foe in both cases) taking the same damage from the same spell at the same time will or won't break invisibility depending on where he was standing before he took the damage?

-Hyp.

 

[TYPO5478]

So you feel that the same orc (considered a foe in both cases) taking the same damage from the same spell at the same time will or won't break invisibility depending on where he was standing before he took the damage?

Nope. It depends on the foe's actions, not his position. I don't think a foe should be able to break your enchantment by harming himself.

Out of curiousity, what are your answers to your questions?

How about these?

An invisible caster casts delayed blast fireball with a two round delay where the area will engulf our orcish foe when the bead explodes. The next round, the orc moves outside the blast radius of the spell and stays there until after the spell detonates. Does that break invisibility?

Our caster tries again with delayed blast fireball (after recasting invisibility if necessary). However, this time the orc, instead of moving himself, tries to move the bead. Unfortunately, he mishandles it and it explodes in his hand... two rounds early. Does that break the caster's invisibility?

Meanwhile, the party's invisible rogue attempts to break the rope holding the chandelier above the orc's head by shooting it with his crossbow. The rogue misses the rope, and his bolt falls harmlessly (and intact) at the orc's feet. The orc, in the hopes of breaking the rogues enchantment, picks up the bolt and stabs himself in the leg with it. Does the rogue become visible?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Out of curiousity, what are your answers to your questions?

In all five cases, we have a spell whose area includes a foe, which the text of the invisibility spell describes as an attack for the purposes of the invisibility spell.

An invisible caster casts delayed blast fireball with a two round delay where the area will engulf our orcish foe when the bead explodes. The next round, the orc moves outside the blast radius of the spell and stays there until after the spell detonates. Does that break invisibility?

The text of the DBF spell indicates that the 'burst' occurs on detonation, so until that occurs, I can only assume that 'Area: 20 ft. radius spread' described in the Fireball spell doesnt apply. Once it does, upon detonation, the area of the spell doesn't include a foe, because he's moved.

Our caster tries again with delayed blast fireball (after recasting invisibility if necessary). However, this time the orc, instead of moving himself, tries to move the bead. Unfortunately, he mishandles it and it explodes in his hand... two rounds early. Does that break the caster's invisibility?

When the DBF 'bursts', we have a spell whose area includes a foe.

Meanwhile, the party's invisible rogue attempts to break the rope holding the chandelier above the orc's head by shooting it with his crossbow. The rogue misses the rope, and his bolt falls harmlessly (and intact) at the orc's feet. The orc, in the hopes of breaking the rogues enchantment, picks up the bolt and stabs himself in the leg with it. Does the rogue become visible?

No, but the orc presumably would, were he also invisible...

The rogue did not attack a creature. We have a definition for attacking a creature with a crossbow, and it would involve a ranged attack roll vs the creature's AC.

We also have a definition for attacking with a spell (for the purposes of the invisibility spell), and it includes any spell whose area includes a foe.

-Hyp.